What problems did the Idaho AG flag with the proposed Idaho Medical Cannabis Act ballot initiative?
Subject
Certificate of Review on a proposed Idaho ballot initiative titled the "Idaho Medical Cannabis Act," which would have added a new chapter 35 to title 37 of the Idaho Code authorizing growth, possession, distribution, sale, and use of medical cannabis under a state-licensed framework. AG Raúl Labrador's office, under Idaho Code § 34-1809, identified multiple drafting and constitutional concerns and recommended specific revisions.
Plain-English summary
Idaho law (Idaho Code § 34-1809) requires the Attorney General to review every proposed citizen ballot initiative before it can collect signatures. The review is "advisory only" and the petitioner is free to accept or reject any of the recommendations. The AG does not pass on policy, only on form, drafting, and legal/constitutional concerns.
This Certificate of Review covers a proposed initiative titled the "Idaho Medical Cannabis Act," which would have set up a state-licensed medical marijuana system with cards, production licenses, caregivers, and law-enforcement non-cooperation rules. The AG's review flagged the following concerns:
- Wrong chapter and naming. The drafters proposed adding chapter 35 to title 37, but the controlled-substance chapter sequencing puts new sections logically in chapter 27. Calling the substance "cannabis" creates definitional confusion because Idaho already defines "marijuana" in Idaho Code § 37-2701, and "cannabis" is not the same as the statutory marijuana definition. The AG recommended replacing "cannabis" with "marijuana" throughout.
- Vagueness. The Act would authorize "growth, possession, distribution, transportation, processing, sale and use of medical cannabis, as well as activities related to" those things. The phrase "related activities" was flagged as void-for-vagueness under Walsh v. Swapp L., PLLC and Haw v. Idaho State Bd. of Med. The phrase "commercial areas" in a separate misdemeanor provision also lacks definition.
- Cross-references that don't work. The proposed THC definition cited "section 37-2707(i)," but Idaho Code § 37-2707 has no subsection (i). The AG suggested § 37-2705(d)(27) as the proper reference. A separate provision treated drug distribution as a misdemeanor, but Idaho law makes drug distribution a felony, never a misdemeanor.
- Practitioner / "family remedy" loophole. The Act would let a "practitioner" diagnose a "substantial health condition" and authorize a card. Under Idaho Code § 54-1804(1)(k), a person who "administers a family remedy to a member of the family" can engage in some activities of medicine without a medical license. The AG warned that this could be exploited to have family members self-diagnose under the Act and obtain a card without a licensed clinician.
- No quantity limits anywhere. The Act sets no caps on how much medical cannabis a cardholder can possess, how much a caregiver can hold, or how many caregivers a cardholder can designate. The AG flagged this as creating diversion risk and as making it impossible for state law enforcement to coordinate with federal trafficking investigations.
- Producer eligibility limited to existing hemp licensees. The Act would limit medical cannabis production licenses to applicants holding "consecutive hemp licenses since 2022." The AG flagged this as inviting equal protection and due process challenges, citing City of Lewiston v. Knieriem and Osborn Utilities Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission.
- Hospital "medical care" carve-out goes too far. A subsection treats medical cannabis as the equivalent of any other medication for purposes of medical care including organ transplants. Read literally, that could prevent hospitals from limiting cannabis use on their premises. The AG asked for clarifying language.
- Single-subject violation. Sections 2 and 3 of the initiative would reclassify ALL marijuana and ALL THC (not just medical cannabis) from schedule I to schedule II under Idaho Code § 37-2705. The AG concluded this exceeds the "Idaho Medical Cannabis Act" title and violates Idaho Const. art. III § 16's single-subject rule, citing Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries. Recommendation: delete sections 2 and 3.
- No quantity limits + § 37-2732B trafficking carve-out. Section 5 of the initiative would exempt all conduct authorized under the Act from Idaho's marijuana trafficking laws, regardless of pound or plant counts. With no cap inside the Act, this means unlimited quantities could escape the trafficking statute's mandatory minimums.
- Law-enforcement non-cooperation problems. Section 19 would bar Idaho peace officers from spending state resources on enforcement of federal cannabis law, providing information to federal agents, or assisting federal agents on cannabis-related investigations even when the suspect is licensed under the Act. The AG warned this could disrupt state-federal cooperative arrangements under Idaho Code § 37-2743 and risk federal funding.
The Certificate also confirms the federal supremacy reality: even if Idaho enacted the initiative, federal cannabis law would still apply, and federal employment, banking, and housing rules would still treat cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance. State legalization does not change federal status.
What this means for you
If you are an Idaho initiative drafter or petitioner
Read this Certificate of Review like a redline from a sympathetic editor. Each numbered concern is a specific drafting fix. The big-ticket items the AG suggested:
- Drop sections 2 and 3 of the proposed initiative (the wholesale schedule reclassification of all marijuana and all THC). Under Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries and Idaho Const. art. III § 16, those sections likely doom the entire initiative on single-subject grounds. Keeping them risks the Idaho Supreme Court invalidating the whole Act after passage, which is the worst possible outcome.
- Add quantity limits for cardholders, caregivers, and production licensees. Without caps, the trafficking-law carve-out in section 5 effectively legalizes unlimited cultivation and possession, which (a) makes the Act look like a backdoor to recreational legalization and (b) makes coordination with federal investigations impossible.
- Replace "cannabis" with "marijuana" throughout to align with Idaho Code § 37-2701's existing definition.
- Define "related activities" and "commercial areas" to avoid void-for-vagueness challenges.
- Fix the cross-references: replace "§ 37-2707(i)" with "§ 37-2705(d)(27)" for THC, and delete the misdemeanor language (drug distribution is always a felony in Idaho).
- Tighten the practitioner definition to exclude the family-remedy carve-out.
- Open the producer license to applicants beyond existing hemp licensees, or be prepared to defend the restriction on equal protection grounds.
- Soften the hospital language so facilities can still control on-site cannabis use.
- Soften section 19 so it doesn't paint Idaho law enforcement into a corner with federal partners.
If you are an Idaho voter who might see this on a ballot
A "Certificate of Review" is not a denial. The petitioner can ignore every recommendation and proceed to collect signatures with the original text. If the petitioner adopts revisions, the changes happen before signature gathering, not at the ballot. If the original text reaches the ballot with the issues unfixed, voters are deciding on language that the AG has flagged as legally problematic. After passage, several of the flagged issues (single-subject, vagueness, equal protection on producer eligibility) would likely produce immediate court challenges.
The AG's review explicitly does not address whether legalizing medical marijuana is good policy. That is the voter's call. The review addresses whether the specific text would survive the legal hurdles to actually take effect.
If you are an Idaho state legislator
Watch the petitioner's response. If they file a revised version that accepts most AG recommendations, the initiative will look like a much harder political target. If they file the original text unchanged, it gives opponents (including the legislature) a clear playbook for litigation challenges if the measure passes. Either way, this Certificate is the most detailed published legal analysis of medical marijuana legalization in Idaho, and worth reading whether or not the initiative reaches the ballot.
If you are a secretary of state election official
The Certificate of Review process under Idaho Code § 34-1809 has tight statutory timelines. After this Certificate is issued, the petitioner can revise and resubmit (which restarts the clock), can demand ballot titles based on the original text, or can withdraw. Be ready for any of those paths.
If you are an Idaho law enforcement officer
Section 19 of the proposed Act, if enacted, would impose explicit non-cooperation duties on you when investigations involve federal cannabis enforcement. The AG warns that complying could impair federal funding and existing cooperative arrangements under Idaho Code § 37-2743. If the initiative passes in its current form, expect agency-level guidance and likely litigation testing the limits of state non-cooperation rules.
If you are a cannabis industry advocate
The hemp-license-only producer eligibility provision (subsection (2)(b) of Prop. I.C. § 37-3506) is a built-in incumbent advantage that limits the production market to people who held a "consecutive" Idaho hemp license since 2022. The AG flagged this as legally vulnerable. If you believe the market should be open, push the petitioner to revise this section.
Common questions
Q: Is this opinion an endorsement or rejection of the medical marijuana initiative?
A: Neither. Idaho Code § 34-1809 expressly limits Certificates of Review to legal and drafting issues. The AG explicitly stated: "This office offers no opinion about the policy issues raised by the proposed initiative."
Q: What happens next for the initiative?
A: The petitioner has three options. (1) Accept some or all of the recommendations and revise the text (which generally restarts the review process). (2) Reject the recommendations and proceed to ballot title preparation. (3) Withdraw. The Certificate is "advisory only" under § 34-1809(1)(b).
Q: Can the AG block the initiative?
A: No. The Idaho AG has no veto over a citizen initiative. The Certificate of Review process is advisory. Even if the AG flags multiple constitutional issues, the petitioner can move forward and let voters decide.
Q: Does Idaho currently allow any form of medical marijuana?
A: As of this opinion (September 2025), no. Marijuana and THC are schedule I controlled substances under Idaho Code § 37-2705(d)(19) and (d)(29). Industrial hemp under federal definitions is excluded from the marijuana definition by Idaho Code § 37-2701(u)(1).
Q: What is the single-subject rule?
A: Idaho Const. art. III § 16 requires that every act "embrace but one subject" expressed in its title. The Idaho Supreme Court applies this strictly to citizen initiatives, as reaffirmed in Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries (2024). An initiative titled "Idaho Medical Cannabis Act" cannot also wholesale reclassify all marijuana and all THC, since recreational reclassification is a different subject.
Q: If the initiative passed with the law-enforcement non-cooperation language, would Idaho lose federal funding?
A: Possibly. The AG flagged this risk specifically. Federal grant programs often condition funding on cooperation with federal authorities. Section 19's prohibitions on assisting federal investigations and providing information could trigger reductions in federal law-enforcement assistance.
Q: Why does the AG care that "cannabis" and "marijuana" mean different things in the statute?
A: Because Idaho's existing controlled substances definitions use "marijuana" as the term of art, and the proposed Act would carve out an exception to those existing prohibitions. If the Act's exception talks about "cannabis" while the underlying prohibition talks about "marijuana," courts would have to figure out whether the exception even reaches the relevant prohibition. The AG wants the same word used in both places.
Q: Could a private home-grown family cannabis use slip through under the family-remedy rule?
A: That is exactly the AG's concern. Idaho Code § 54-1804(1)(k) lets a person administer a "family remedy" to a family member without practicing medicine. Without explicit limits in the Act, a family member could plausibly diagnose another family member with a "substantial health condition" and request a medical cannabis card, bypassing licensed clinicians.
Background and statutory framework
Idaho's citizen initiative process runs through Idaho Code §§ 34-1801 through 34-1822. Section 34-1809 specifically governs Attorney General review. Within a strict statutory window after a petition is filed, the AG must issue a Certificate of Review identifying "matters of substantive import" the AG deems necessary to address. The recommendations are "advisory only," and petitioners are free to accept or reject them in whole or in part. Idaho Code § 34-1809(1)(b).
The single-subject rule at Idaho Const. art. III § 16 requires every act to embrace one subject, expressed in the title. The Idaho Supreme Court has applied this rule to citizen initiatives, most recently in Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries, 174 Idaho 1034, 554 P.3d 85 (2024). The purpose, as quoted in the Certificate, is "to prevent the combining of incongruous matters and objects totally distinct and having no connection nor relation with each other; to guard against 'logrolling' legislation; and to prevent the perpetration of fraud upon the members of the [l]egislature or the citizens of the state in the enactment of laws."
The Idaho controlled substances framework runs through Idaho Code §§ 37-2701 through 37-2750. Marijuana and THC are schedule I substances under § 37-2705(d). Schedule I status under § 37-2704 requires a finding that the substance has high potential for abuse and either no accepted medical use or lack of accepted safety in treatment. Schedule II status under § 37-2706 requires a finding of currently accepted medical use (with severe restrictions if applicable) and severe psychic or physical dependence risk. The proposed Act's sections 2 and 3 would reclassify both marijuana and THC across this line for all purposes, not just for medical cannabis under the Act.
The Idaho Pharmacy Act and Medical Practice Act, at title 54 chapters 17 and 18 respectively, govern who can prescribe, diagnose, and dispense regulated substances. Idaho Code § 54-1804(1)(k)'s family-remedy exception was intended for ordinary household medicine, not for controlled substance diagnosis.
Citations and references
Idaho statutes:
- Idaho Code § 34-1809, Certificate of Review process; advisory-only recommendations
- Idaho Code § 37-2701, controlled substances definitions, including marijuana
- Idaho Code § 37-2704, schedule I criteria
- Idaho Code § 37-2705(d)(19), (27), (29), schedule I marijuana, THC
- Idaho Code § 37-2707, schedule II controlled substances
- Idaho Code § 37-2732, § 37-2732B(a)(1), § 37-2732D, manufacture/delivery and trafficking offenses
- Idaho Code § 37-2743, state-federal cooperative arrangements
- Idaho Code §§ 54-1803, 1807A, practice of medicine; physician assistants
- Idaho Code § 54-1804(1), (1)(k), exceptions to medical practice licensing including family remedy
- Idaho Code § 18-8004(1)(a): driving under the influence
Federal:
- 7 U.S.C. § 2013, SNAP state participation conditions
- 7 CFR 990.1 et seq.: federal hemp regulations
Idaho Constitution:
- Idaho Const. art. III, § 16: single-subject rule
Cases:
- Walsh v. Swapp L., PLLC, 166 Idaho 629, 462 P.3d 607 (2020), void-for-vagueness standard
- Haw v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 140 Idaho 152, 90 P.3d 902 (2004), vagueness as due process
- City of Lewiston v. Knieriem, 107 Idaho 80, 685 P.2d 821 (1984), equal protection in licensing
- Osborn Utilities Corp. v. Public Utilities Commission of Idaho, 52 Idaho 571, 17 P.2d 333 (1932), confiscation/arbitrary regulation void
- Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries, 174 Idaho 1034, 554 P.3d 85 (2024), single-subject rule applied to citizen initiatives
- United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313 (1978), federal/state dual sovereignty in criminal enforcement
Source
- Landing page: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/office-resources/opinions/
- Original PDF: https://www.ag.idaho.gov/content/uploads/2025/09/25-99494-Response-COR.pdf
Original opinion text
September 29, 2025
VIA HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Phil McGrane
Idaho Secretary of State
Statehouse
Re:
Certificate of Review
Proposed Initiative Creating New Medical Marijuana Act by Adding
Chapter 35 to Title 37, Idaho Code, to Legalize the Use of Medical
Marijuana
Dear Secretary of State McGrane:
An initiative petition was filed with your office on August 29, 2025. Pursuant
to Idaho Code section 34-1809, this office has reviewed the petition and has prepared
the following advisory comments. Given the strict statutory timeframe within which
this office must review the petition, our review can only isolate areas of concern and
cannot provide in-depth analysis of each issue that may present problems. Further,
under the review statute, the Attorney General’s recommendations are “advisory
only.” Idaho Code § 34-1809(1)(b). The petitioners are free to “accept or reject them
in whole or in part.” Id. Due to the available resources and limited time for performing
the reviews, we did not communicate directly with the petitioner as part of the review
process. The opinions expressed in this review are only those that may affect the
legality of the initiative. This office offers no opinion about the policy issues raised by
the proposed initiative.
BALLOT TITLES
Following the filing of the proposed initiative, this office will prepare short and
long ballot titles. Idaho Code § 34-1809(2)(a). The ballot titles should impartially and
succinctly state the purpose of the measure without being argumentative and without
creating prejudice for or against the measure. Idaho Code § 34-1809(2)(e). While our
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 2
office prepares titles for the initiative, petitioners may submit proposed titles for
consideration. Idaho Code § 34-1809(2). The advisory comments below address the
proposed titles included in the initiative petition. This does not mean, however, that
our office agrees with the substance of the proposed titles or that this office will
ultimately use the proposed titles if the proposed initiative is filed.
MATTERS OF SUBSTANTIVE IMPORT
A.
Summary of the Initiative
The initiative is titled the “Idaho Medical Cannabis Act” (“Act”) and is
denominated as Idaho Code sections 37-3501 et seq. 1 Primarily, the initiative seeks
to amend title 37, Idaho Code, by adding newly proposed chapter 35 to title 37 (Prop.
I.C. § 37-3501 et seq.), which declares that persons authorized by the Act to grow,
possess, distribute, transport, process, sell, and use medical cannabis, and conduct
related activities, are protected from criminal, civil, and administrative penalties and
sanctions.
In general, the Act would allow the Idaho Board of Pharmacy (“board”) in
cooperation with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (“department”) to
issue “medical cannabis production licenses” to various persons and entities to
produce, transport, and distribute (etc.) medical marijuana to “medical cannabis
cardholders” who have been diagnosed by a “practitioner” with having a “substantial
health condition.” The Act precludes criminal and civil liability and sanctions for
persons acting within its authorization.
B.
Legal and Practical Concerns
Given the length and complexity of the Act, this review will necessarily address
only a select number of its more significant and noteworthy provisions. This review
will involve, among other matters, the “single-subject rule” of the Idaho Constitution.
It states: “Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected
therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title.” IDAHO CONST. art. III, § 16.
The constitutional provision continues, “but if any subject shall be embraced in an
act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much
thereof as shall not be embraced in the title.” Id. In short, a title must accurately
summarize what is contained in the body of the initiative, and the body of the
initiative must reflect what is in the title.
1 References to “proposed” I.C. § 37-3501 et seq. and other proposed statutory changes will be prefaced
with “Prop.” References to “Act” and “initiative” are used interchangeably.
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 3
SECTION 1:
1.
Heading
The heading for “Section 1” of the initiative states that it is amending title 37
of the Idaho Code by the addition of a new chapter, chapter 35, title 37. However,
Prop. I.C. §§ 37-3501 et seq. should logically fall within chapter 27 of title 37, which
would place it in line with other statutes relating to penalties and prohibited acts
involving controlled substances. It is therefore recommended that the initiative
designate its proposed new Act as Prop. I.C. § 37-2732E2 et. seq.
2.
Requested Short Title – Prop. I.C. § 37-3501
The requested Short Title” 3 reads in full as “Idaho Medical Cannabis Act.”
Prop. I.C. § 37-3501(1) (emphasis added). The term “cannabis” is used extensively
throughout the Act. However, cannabis is defined in the Act as “marijuana as defined
in section 37-2701, Idaho Code.” Prop. I.C. § 37-3502(2). Therefore, it requires
reference to two definitions for the reader to understand that the Act seeks to legalize
the medical use of marijuana—not cannabis. Cannabis is not the same as Idaho’s
statutorily defined “marijuana,” which excludes various parts of the “plant genus
Cannabis.” See Idaho Code § 37-2701(u)(1)&(2). To avoid misleading the public about
the subject matter of the initiative, it is recommended that “cannabis” be replaced
with “marijuana” throughout the Act.
The initiative does not request a general (or “long”) title. As required by Idaho
Code § 34-1809(2), within ten working days after receiving copies of the petition, the
Attorney General shall prepare ballot titles containing a short title (not exceeding 20
words) and a general title (not exceeding 200 words).
3.
Intent of the Act - Prop. I.C. § 37-3501
Subsection (2) of Prop. I.C. § 37-3501 states that the intent of the Act is “to
authorize the use of medical cannabis for persons diagnosed with a substantial health
condition,” and that persons acting in accordance with the Act will not “be held to
violate chapter 27, title 37, Idaho Code, or any other provision of state law, local
ordinance, or administrative rule.”
2 Idaho Code § 37-2732D (trafficking in fentanyl) was added to the Uniform Controlled Substances Act,
effective July 1, 2024. Therefore, the next addition to Idaho Code § 37-2732 should be Idaho Code § 372732E.
3 Quotations of wholly capitalized parts of the initiative will be modified to capitalize only the first
letter of each word.
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 4
4.
Definitions - Prop. I.C. § 37-3502
Several of the definitions within Prop. I.C. § 37-3502 deserve consideration or
comment. Subsection (4) defines “medical cannabis” as “a) inhalable cannabis; b)
smokeable cannabis; and c) ingestible cannabis processed to a tablet, chewable,
droplet, or pill containing up to ten (10) milligrams of [THC] per tablet, chewable,
droplet, or pill.”
Subsection (4) describes several forms of cannabis that would constitute
“medical cannabis,” which, read in isolation, implies that they would be legal
regardless of authorization under the Act. (See section 2, above, regarding use of word
“cannabis.”)
Subsections (3) and (5) together provide that a “medical cannabis cardholder”
or “cardholder” is “an individual with a diagnosed substantial health condition that
has been approved by the department[4] for a medical cannabis card.”
A “medical cannabis production license” or “license” is “a license issued by the
board to grow, handle, process, manufacture, test, transport, distribute and sell
medical cannabis” according to the Act. Prop. I.C. § 37-3506(1).
The Act defines a “Practitioner” as “a person that may diagnose a substantial
health condition under chapter 18, title 54, Idaho Code,” qualifying the diagnosed
person to be a medical cannabis cardholder. Prop. I.C. § 37-3506(8) (emphasis added).
Physicians and physician assistants clearly meet the “practitioner” criteria. See Idaho
Code §§ 54-1803, 1807A. In addition, Idaho Code § 54-1804(1) provides a list of
persons who, “though not holding a license to practice medicine in this state, may
engage in activities included in the practice of medicine.” 5 One of those listed is a
person who “administers[] a family remedy to a member of the family.” Idaho Code §
54-1804(1)(k). If the Act becomes law, attempts will likely be made to have cannabis
be deemed a “family remedy” to allow a family member to “diagnose” other family
members with a substantial health condition and obtain a medical cannabis card.
Subsection (9) defines “substantial health condition” as “a condition described
in” Prop. I.C. § 37-3504. That proposed statute lists 20 conditions that qualify as
substantial health conditions that would allow a person to obtain a medical cannabis
card. The provision lists serious and verifiable diseases such as AIDS, Alzheimer’s,
4 “Department” is defined in the Act as the Department of Health and Welfare. Prop. I.C. § 37-3502(3).
5 Idaho Code § 54-1803(1) states that the “practice of medicine” includes the “diagnosis” of, or
prescription for any human disease, ailment, injury, infirmity, deformity or other condition, physical
or mental, by any means or instrumentality that involves the application of principles or techniques
of medical science,” etc.
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 5
ALS, and cancer, but also less verifiable conditions such as anxiety, insomnia, acute
pain (longer than two weeks), and chronic and persistent pain (lasting longer than
two weeks and not adequately managed). Prop. I.C. § 37-3504. The inability to verify
that a person has a “substantial health condition” could lead to fraud or abuse by
persons attempting to obtain a medical cannabis card.
Subsection (10) states that ‘“[t]etrahydrocannabinol’ or ‘THC’ means a
substance derived from cannabis and contained in a plant of the genus cannabis”;
“synthetic equivalents” of cannabis substances; or “synthetic substances, derivatives,
and their isomers with similar chemical structure as described in section 37-2707(i).”
However, there is no sub-section (i) to Idaho Code § 37-2707, which lists Schedule II
controlled substances. It appears likely that the Act should more accurately refer to
Idaho Code § 37-2705(d)(27), which defines “Tetrahydrocannabinols or synthetic
equivalents of the substances contained in the plant, or in the resinous extractives of
Cannabis, [etc.].” It is recommended that Act be modified accordingly. 6
5.
Authorization - Prop. I.C. § 37-3503
The thrust of the Act is expressed in Prop. I.C. § 37-3503 as follows:
Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, the growth,
possession, distribution, transportation, processing, sale and use of
medical cannabis, as well as activities related to the growth, possession,
distribution, transportation, processing, sale and use of medical
cannabis, are authorized as provided in this chapter.
(Emphasis added.)
Whether an activity is “related to the growth, possession, distribution,
transportation, processing, sale and use of medical cannabis,” and thus, authorized
by the Act, would be subject to uncertainty and likely lead to a constitutional
challenge based on the "void for vagueness" principle. That principle is that "a statute
which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application violates the first essential of due process of law." Walsh v. Swapp L.,
PLLC, 166 Idaho 629, 641, 462 P.3d 607, 619 (2020) (quoting Haw v. Idaho State Bd.
of Med., 140 Idaho 152, 157, 90 P.3d 902, 907 (2004). It is recommended that the
initiative clarify what “related activities” fall within the Act’s authorization.
6 As will be discussed, Sections 2 and 3 of the initiative seek to remove marijuana and THC from
schedule I and re-classify them as schedule II substances within Idaho’s Controlled Substances Act. It
will be recommended that Sections 2 and 3 of the initiative be deleted.
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 6
6.
Substantial Health Conditions - Prop. I.C. § 37-3504
The most noteworthy “substantial health conditions” have been discussed in
the above section 4 under Prop. I.C. § 37-3502(9) and need no further comment.
7.
Medical Cannabis Card - Prop. I.C. § 37-3505
Subsection (1) of Prop. I.C. § 37-3505 states that, effective July 1, 2026, persons
diagnosed with a substantial health condition can apply to the department “for a
medical cannabis card for the purchase of medical cannabis.” There is no age
limitation for becoming a medical cannabis cardholder. See generally Prop. I.C. § 373505.
Among other requirements, the applicant must provide personal identifying
information and a medical health record “stating that the applicant has a diagnosis
of a substantial health condition.” Prop. I.C. § 37-3505(3). Medical cannabis cards are
renewed annually and must be carried by the cardholder when engaging in activities
authorized by the Act. Prop. I.C. § 37-3505(5)–(6).
The department, with the cooperation of the board, must provide medical
cannabis card recipients with a list of risks, warnings, and safety information. Prop.
I.C. § 37-3505(7). The department may “establish procedures by rule to implement
the application and issuance provision of this section.” Prop. I.C. § 37-3505(8).
Subsection (9) of Prop. I.C. § 37-3505 states that a medical cannabis card
applicant “may designate one or more licensed caregivers to assist with obtaining and
handling medical cannabis for a cardholder.” Later in the Act, it states that “[a]
licensed caregiver designated by the medical cannabis cardholder with the
department may deliver medical cannabis to the medical cannabis cardholder.” Prop.
I.C. § 37-3516(3). The Act does not provide any restrictions on who may be a caregiver
or how much medical cannabis a caregiver can possess—it merely states that the
caregiver “may deliver” cannabis to the cardholder. Also, there is no restriction on
how many caregivers a cardholder can designate.
The “caregiver” arrangement is fraught with the possibility that medical
cannabis legally limited to being transferred to and ingested by a cardholder will be
ingested or seized by one or more caregivers or be distributed to persons outside of
the Act’s authorization. The Act should be modified to include provisions ensuring
that medical cannabis is transported to the intended cardholder without tampering
by the caregiver.
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 7
8.
Medical Cannabis Production License - Prop. I.C. § 37-3506
The Act establishes requirements for obtaining a medical cannabis production
license in Prop. I.C. § 37-3506(2). A licensee is authorized to “grow, handle, process,
manufacture, test, transport, distribute, deliver and sell to medical cannabis
cardholders according to [the Act].” Prop. I.C. § 37-3506(1). An applicant must submit
to the board: (a) the location of the production facility (or facilities); (b) a “consecutive
hemp license in the person’s name and in good standing since 2022” or the creation
of “a new legal entity as the licensee”; (c) an operating plan; (d) letters of
recommendation from the local community; (e) an initial license fee; (f) identifying
information of persons with a voting or financial interest of five per-cent or more; and
(g) the “name of a pharmacist that shall provide oversight as to the dispensing,
storing, distributing and selling of medical cannabis.”
As noted, subsection (2)(b) requires that an applicant initially have consecutive
hemp licenses in the person’s name and be in good standing since 2022. That
requirement would limit licensees to those who have been previously granted
“consecutive” industrial hemp licenses. 7 The exclusion of other applicants would
likely invite constitutional challenges, such as the taking of property rights without
due process and by denying equal protection. See City of Lewiston v. Knieriem, 107
Idaho 80, 85, 685 P.2d 821, 826 (1984); Osborn Utilities Corporation of Osborn v.
Public Utilities Commission of Idaho, 52 Idaho 571, 17 P.2d 333, 334 (1932) (“Any
regulation, therefore, which operates as a confiscation of private property or
constitutes an arbitrary or unreasonable infringement of personal or property rights
is void because repugnant to the constitutional guaranties of due process and equal
protection of the laws.”).
Subsection (3) provides that a medical cannabis growth and production facility
can only be in an “agricultural zone, but not within half (1/2) a mile of an area that
the relevant municipality or county has zoned as primarily residential” at the time
the Act takes effect. Under subsection (4), processing fulfillment centers and
warehousing and distribution centers can be established outside the growth and
production facility. Each production license holder may distribute and sell medical
cannabis to cardholders “only through retail locations, the internet with in[-]person
delivery, or pick up at retail locations or fulfillment centers, and in person delivery.”
Id.
Idaho Code § 37-2701(u)(1) excludes from the definition of marijuana “Industrial hemp or hemp
possessed, grown, transported, farmed, produced, processed, or possessed by any other entity engaged
in hauling, transporting, delivering, or otherwise moving hemp in interstate or intrastate commerce
pursuant to a license granted under the provisions of the 2014 farm bill, the 2018 farm bill, 7 CFR
990.1 et seq., or the approved state plan for the state of Idaho.”
7
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 8
According to subsection (5) of Prop. I.C. § 37-3506, medical cannabis production
license holders “must engage” a board-licensed pharmacist to “provide oversight for
dispensing, storing, distributing and selling of medical cannabis.” The pharmacist
and license holder must ensure (a) records of the cardholder’s medical cannabis card
and cardholder’s identification are maintained, and (b) that the pharmacist provides
oversight to employees and contractors “that sell, store, maintain, and transport
medical cannabis under the same rules, policies, and conditions as pharmaceutical
opioids.” Id. Additionally, the license holder and pharmacist must provide warning
labels about the effects of cannabis, stating “Keep Out of Reach of Children”, and
about the risks of overconsumption. Prop. I.C. § 37-3506(5)(c).
Subsection (6) of Prop. I.C. § 37-3506 requires the board to inform the Idaho
State Police and local sheriff about the names of persons approved for medical
cannabis production licenses. In subsection (7), the Act requires production licensees
to be at least 21 years of age. It also precludes production licenses to persons convicted
of a felony, or convicted, within five years of applying for a license, of a “misdemeanor
for drug distribution.” This last requirement does not make sense because, in Idaho,
there is no misdemeanor for drug distribution -- it is always a felony. That provision
should be deleted. Finally, subsection (8) requires the board to assist applicants for a
medical cannabis production license “to the extent possible,” and to “approve, deny or
approve with conditions” within 30 days of receipt of the application.
9.
Criminal Background Checks - Prop. I.C. § 37-3507
Prop. I.C. § 37-3507(1) requires applicants for a medical cannabis production
license to consent to being fingerprinted for criminal background checks by the Idaho
State Police and F.B.I. The Idaho State Police are required to check the fingerprint
records against state, regional, and national criminal record databases, and report
the results to the board. Prop. I.C. § 37-3507(1).
10.
Operating Plan - Prop. I.C. § 37-3508
Prop. I.C. § 37-3508 lists the information required to be the operating plan, or
renewal plan, for a medical cannabis production license. It includes descriptions of
the facilities, credentials of the officers, director, and license owner, training,
inventory control, security, cultivation and extraction practices, equipment,
sanitation, safety procedures, testing capability, equipment, methods, standards, and
testing procedures. Prop. I.C. § 37-3508.
11.
Number of Licenses & License Holder Operations - Prop. I.C. § 37-3509
Prop. I.C. § 37-3509(1) limits the initial number of medical cannabis production
licenses to three. The board can expand the number of licenses issued based on
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 9
population growth, but no more than a total of six licenses may be issued. The
proposed statute sets out criteria for the board to evaluate applications for licenses if
there are more qualified applicants than available licenses. Prop. I.C. § 37-3509(2)(3).
Subsections (4) and (5) require license holders to operate according to the
operating plans and notify the board of material changes in them. The board is
required to establish rules for reviewing and complying with operating plans and is
authorized to suspend or revoke a license if the license holder fails to cure a
noncompliance. Id., subsection (7)(a)-(d).
12.
Inspections - Prop. I.C. § 37-3510
Prop. I.C. § 37-3510 allows the board, after giving reasonable notice, to inspect
the records and facilities of a medical cannabis production license holder during
business hours to determine compliance with the Act. The proposed statute allows
inspection of the site, their books, records, and other materials; the questioning of
relevant persons; and the removal of cannabis specimens and products for testing.
Prop. I.C. § 37-3510(2). Failure to provide reasonable access to records and facilities
during business hours may lead to suspension of operations. Prop. I.C. § 37-3510(4).
13.
Shipment of Medical Cannabis - Prop. I.C. § 37-3511
Prop. I.C. § 37-3511 states that “Any cannabis that a medical cannabis
production license holder cultivates or otherwise produces and subsequently ships”
must (1) be labeled with a unique batch number associated with the holder’s
“inventory control system,” (2) be packaged in a tamper resistant container that is
“not appealing to children” and (3) includes warnings consistent with Prop. I.C. § 373506(5)(c).
14.
Civil Enforcement - Prop. I.C. § 37-3512
For “material violations” of the Act by a medical cannabis production licensee,
Prop. I.C. § 37-3512 empowers the board to revoke, decline, or conditionally approve
the license, and to impose an administrative fine up to $5,000. The provision allows
the board to refer “potential criminal activity to law enforcement.” Prop. I.C. § 373512(3).
15.
Qualified Patient Enterprise Fund - Prop. I.C. § 37-3513
Prop. I.C. § 37-3513 would create a “qualified patient enterprise fund” to
finance the board’s responsibilities under the Act “and to fund peer-reviewed studies
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 10
regarding the medical uses of cannabis.” The fund would consist of fees and
administrative fines, legislative appropriations, and earned interest from the fund.
16.
No Insurance Requirement - Prop. I.C. § 37-3514
This provision states that nothing in the Act “requires an insurer, or an
employer to pay for or reimburse for medical cannabis.”
3515
17.
Effect on Use of Other Approved Drugs or Substances - Prop. I.C. § 37-
Prop. I.C. § 37-3516 provides that the Act does not “restrict[] or otherwise
affect[] the prescription, distribution, or dispensing of a product that the United
States food and drug administration has approved.” It is unclear how the Act’s
provisions could restrict or affect a product approved by the U.S. F.D.A. This
provision appears unnecessary because the Act does not provide any apparent
restrictions or effects on U.S. F.D.A. approved products.
18.
Criminal Enforcement - Prop. I.C. § 37-3516
Prop. I.C. § 37-3516 makes it a misdemeanor for persons to: (1) “[s]ell or
otherwise give medical cannabis to another person” without authorization by the Act,
(2) operate a variety of vehicles, aircraft, and heavy equipment (etc.) “while under the
influence of medical cannabis,” and (3) smoke, vape or inhale medical cannabis “in
any public or commercial areas in the state of Idaho.”
It is already illegal to operate a motor vehicle while “under the influence of
alcohol, drugs or any other intoxicating substances, or any combination of alcohol,
drugs and/or any other intoxicating substances[.]” Idaho Code § 18-8004(1)(a)
(emphasis added). Subsection (2), while not strictly necessary, harmlessly reinforces
the fact that it is illegal to operate a motor vehicle while under the influence any
intoxicating substance—including medical cannabis.
Subsection (3) makes it a misdemeanor to ingest (in various ways) medical
cannabis “in any public or commercial areas in the state of Idaho.” (emphasis added).
That subsection would likely be challenged on constitutional “void for vagueness”
grounds because the meaning of “commercial areas” is not defined and subject to
differing opinions. See Walsh, 166 Idaho at 641, 462 P.3d at 619 (quoting Haw, 140
Idaho at 157, 90 P.3d at 907). It is recommended that the “commercial areas” be
defined or this language be eliminated.
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 11
19.
Prohibitions - Prop. I.C. § 37-3517
Prop. I.C. § 37-3517(1)(a) precludes peace officers, other than correctional
officers, from expending “any state or local resources (including time) to make an
arrest, seize cannabis, or “conduct any investigation on the sole basis of activity that
the peace officer believes to constitute a violation of federal law if the peace officer
has reason to believe that the activity is in compliance with this chapter.” Subsection
(1)(b) prohibits peace officers from enforcing laws that restrict a person’s firearm
rights if the enforcement is based on “the individual’s possession or use of medical
cannabis in accordance” with the Act. Peace officers may not “[p]rovide any
information or logistical support related to an activity described in paragraph (a) …
to any federal law enforcement authority or prosecuting entity. Prop. I.C. § 373517(1)(c). State agencies and political subdivisions “may not take adverse action
against a person for providing professional services [under the Act] … on the sole
basis that the service is a violation of federal law.” Prop. I.C. § 37-3517(2).
Prop. I.C. § 37-3517 presents several issues. First, the determination of
whether an officer “has reason to believe” that a suspect’s conduct falls within the Act
would be highly subjective and difficult to ascertain. Next, because the Act does not
provide any quantity limits on medical cannabis, federal agencies investigating
criminal enterprises involving large amounts of marijuana would be unable to obtain
assistance from state, county, or municipal law enforcement officers—assuming the
federal suspect is licensed or otherwise authorized to possess or use medical cannabis
under the Act. Non-assistance by Idaho’s law enforcement agencies with federal
agencies could lead to the reduction or elimination of federal assistance (financial or
investigatory) to Idaho in law enforcement matters.
Additionally, the “non-cooperation” provisions of the proposed statute would
likely disrupt any existing cooperative arrangements between state and federal
agencies “concerning traffic in controlled substances and in suppressing the abuse of
controlled substances” as required by Idaho Code § 37-2743 (“Cooperative
arrangements”). Finally, although the non-assistance by state agencies with their
federal counterparts would not present a legal issue, if such non-cooperation
escalated into actual interference, there could be civil or criminal repercussions for
the state and local law enforcement agencies and officers involved.
20.
Protections - Prop. I.C. § 37-3518
Practitioners and pharmacists who take any action “authorized by” the Act are
protected from “arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner,” and from being denied
“any right or privilege, including without limitation a civil penalty or disciplinary
action by a licensing board or bureau.” Prop. I.C. § 37-3518(1). Subsection (2)
precludes landlords, school districts, public charter schools, state institutions of
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 12
higher education, and community colleges from (a) refusing to enroll, lease to, or
penalize a person acting within the Act’s authority (unless doing so would violate
federal law or regulation); and (b) penalizing or denying any benefit under state law
or local ordinance for leasing to, or employing a cardholder.
Subsection (3) prohibits employers from discriminating against persons whose
conduct falls within the Act in “hiring, termination, or any term or condition of
employment,” with specific exceptions that do not warrant discussion here. The
subsection also states that “[n]o employer is required to allow the use of cannabis in
any workplace or to allow any employee to work while under the influence of
cannabis.” Prop. I.C. § 37-3518(3).
Subsection (4) protects the custody and visitation rights of parents from being
denied “solely for conduct allowed under this chapter,” nor may findings or
presumptions of abuse or neglect be based on conduct authorized under the Act.
Subsection (5) grants users of cannabis under the Act the same rights that
would be afforded under state law and local ordinance as “if the person were solely
prescribed a pharmaceutical medication as it pertains to: any interaction with a
person's employer; drug testing by a person's employer; or testing” required by state
or local law, state agency, or local governmental official.
Subsection (6) states that, for the purposes of “medical care” (including an
organ transplant), a patient’s use of medical cannabis under the Act is considered
“the equivalent of the authorized use of any other medication,” and “[d]oes not
constitute the use of an illicit substance to disqualify an individual from needed
medical care.” This subsection could be read to suggest that, because the use of
medical cannabis is equivalent to the use of any other medication, it would be illegal
for hospitals and other health facilities to preclude or limit such use while on their
premises. This would likely be a step too far for such facilities, creating many
practical problems. For instance, a hospital patient in a neighboring bed, as well as
physicians, nurses, and other personnel, might take offense to the use and smell of
cannabis in their workplace. Also, as noted above, Prop. I.C. § 37-3518(3) states in
part, “[n]o employer is required to allow the use of cannabis in any workplace[.]” The
initiative should be amended to make it clear that the Act does not allow for the
ingestion of medical cannabis on-site.
Subsection (7) requires, to the extent possible, that the authorized use of
medical cannabis be treated “the same way the state and political subdivision treat a
person’s use of prescribed opioids and opiates.”
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 13
21.
Controlling Authority - Prop. I.C. § 37-3520
This proposed statute is misnumbered; it should be Prop. I.C. § 37-3519, not
3520. It is self-explanatory, stating: “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, no
municipality, county or other local entity may require a license for or pass an
ordinance that specifically impacts medical cannabis cardholders or a medical
cannabis production license that is inconsistent with this chapter.”
SECTIONS 2 & 3:
Sections 2 and 3 of the initiative likely violate the single-subject rule set out in
article II, § 16 of the Idaho Constitution. That provision states that Idaho requires
that all acts “embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.”
Labrador v. Idahoans for Open Primaries, 174 Idaho 1034, 554 P.3d 85, 96 (Idaho
2024), as amended (Aug. 14, 2024).
Marijuana and THC are currently schedule I controlled substances as
“hallucinogenic substances” under Idaho Code § 37-2705(d)(19) (marihuana) and
Idaho Code § 37-2705(d)(29) (tetrahydrocannabinols). Idaho Code § 37-2704 provides
the following test for schedule I:
The board shall place a substance in schedule I if it finds that the substance:
(a) Has high potential for abuse; and
(b) Has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or
lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.
Section 2 of the initiative would remove all marijuana and all THC from schedule I
of Idaho’s Controlled Substance Act. (Prop. I.C. § 37-2705, et seq.)
Section 3 of the initiative would then add all marijuana and all THC to the list
of less dangerous schedule II controlled substances set out in Idaho Code § 37-2707.
(Prop. § 37-2707(h)-(i).) To be a schedule II controlled substance, the board must find:
(a) The substance has high potential for abuse;
(b) The substance has currently accepted medical use in treatment in
the United States, or currently accepted medical use with severe
restrictions; and
(c) The abuse of the substance may lead to severe psychic or physical
dependence.
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 14
By attempting to remove all marijuana and all THC—not just medical
cannabis—from schedule I and re-classify them as schedule II controlled substances,
it appears that Sections 2 and 3 violate the single-subject rule.
The short title recommended by the initiative (“Idaho Medical Cannabis Act”)
gives no hint that all marijuana and all THC—not just medical cannabis—will be
downgraded from schedule I to schedule II. Moreover, nothing in the body of the
initiative prior to Sections 2 and 3 indicates that anything more than “medical
cannabis” is the subject of the initiative. See IDAHO CONST. art. III, § 16 (“if any
subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act
shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the title.”); See
also Idahoans for Open Primaries, 174 Idaho at ___, 554 P.3d at 96 (“The purpose of
this provision … is to “prevent the combining of incongruous matters and objects
totally distinct and having no connection nor relation with each other; to guard
against ‘logrolling’ legislation; and to prevent the perpetration of fraud upon the
members of the [l]egislature or the citizens of the state in the enactment of laws.”).
Because Sections 2 and 3 appear to violate the single-subject rule of article II,
§ 16 of the Idaho Constitution, it is recommended that they be deleted from the
initiative.
SECTION 4:
Section 4 would amend Idaho Code § 37-2732 by excluding conduct authorized
by the Act from being penalized for the manufacture, delivery, or possession with the
intent to manufacture or deliver a controlled substance—here, marijuana.
SECTION 5:
Section 5 of the initiative would exclude conduct authorized by the Act from
Idaho’s trafficking in marijuana laws. Consistent with the Act’s lack of any limitation
on the quantity of medical cannabis that cardholders and caregivers must comply
with, Section 5 would amend Idaho’s marijuana trafficking laws to legalize all
conduct authorized under the Act—regardless of the amount of marijuana involved.
The following laws and mandatory minimum sentences would not apply to conduct
falling within the Act’s provisions:
Trafficking in marijuana -- Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(1), by knowingly
being in actual or constructive possession of marijuana in the following
quantities:
(A)
One pound or more, but less than five pounds, or 25 to 49 plants;
one year mandatory minimum fixed sentence;
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 15
(B)
(C)
Five pounds or more but less than 25 pounds, or 50 to 99 plants;
three-year mandatory minimum fixed sentence;
25 pounds or more, or 100 or more plants;
five- year mandatory minimum fixed sentence.
Without any quantity restrictions on medical cannabis production licensees,
medical cannabis cardholders, and caregivers, the ability to keep medical cannabis
outside the general public would be greatly compromised. It is recommended that the
Act add limitations on the quantity of medical cannabis that can be possessed by
those persons.
SECTION 6:
Section 6 contains a Severability clause, which reads:
SEVERABILITY. The provisions of this act are hereby declared to be
severable and if any provision of this act or the application of such
provision to any person or circumstance is declared invalid for any
reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this act.
The Severability clause appears to be appropriately worded and legally proper.
C.
If Enacted, the Initiative Would Have No Legal Impact on Federal
Criminal, Employment, or Housing Laws Regarding Marijuana
Idaho is free to enforce its own laws, just as the federal government is free to
do the same. See United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 317 (1978) (superseded by
statute); State v. Marek, 112 Idaho 860, 865, 736 P.2d 1314, 1319 (1987). Under the
concept of "separate sovereigns," the State of Idaho can create its own criminal laws
and exceptions pertaining to the use of marijuana. However, the State of Idaho cannot
limit the federal government, as a separate sovereign, from prosecuting marijuanarelated conduct under its own laws. See United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’
Coop., 532 U.S. 483, 493–95 (2001). Therefore, passage of the initiative would not
affect the ability of the federal government to prosecute marijuana related crimes
under federal laws.
The fact that marijuana use remains illegal under federal law may continue to
impact Idaho's citizens in additional ways as well. For example, a person's marijuana
use might affect the extent to which federal or state housing or employment laws
protect that individual. See Assenberg v. Anacortes Housing Authority, 268 Fed. Appx.
643, 644 (9th Cir. 2008) (housing); Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor
& Industries, 230 P.3d 518,520 (Or. 2010) (employment). Thus, the provisions of the
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 16
initiative, Prop. I.C. § 37-3501 et seq. cannot interfere with or affect federal laws,
criminal or civil, which rely, in whole or in part, on marijuana being illegal under the
federal Controlled Substances Act.
D.
Other Recommended Revisions or Alterations
Apart from requiring labels on shipments of medical cannabis to read “Keep
Out of Reach of Children,” and that shipments shall not be “appealing to children”
(see Prop. § 37-3511), the initiative does not address whether children or adults under
21 years of age may be in proximity to, or contact with, cannabis that is possessed,
produced, or cultivated by a person 21 years of age or older. Such proximity or contact
could negatively impact those under 21, especially children. It is recommended that
the initiative include reasonable restrictions for the storage and ingestion of medical
cannabis when children are present in the home or elsewhere.
Finally, the initiative does not address the legality of paraphernalia used in
conjunction with the storage or ingestion of medical cannabis. It is recommended that
the initiative add a provision making the use of paraphernalia for the storage or
ingestion of medical cannabis legal if done with within the Act’s authorization.
E.
Conclusion
The above review discusses considerations and proposed alterations for the
initiative; for example, re-designating the proposed Act as I.C. § 37-2732E et. seq.,
using the word “marijuana” instead of “cannabis,” deleting Sections 2 and 3 for
violating the single-subject rule, and possible constitutional violations for limiting
initial medical cannabis production licenses to those with consecutive industrial
hemp licenses. In reviewing the initiative’s impact on Idaho in a more general sense,
the following observations are offered.
Passage of the initiative would make marijuana possession and use much more
prevalent in Idaho. The Act provides such broad and subjective definitions about
what constitutes a “substantial health condition” that just about anyone could qualify
to obtain a medical cannabis card. Conditions such as “anxiety, insomnia, acute pain
… and chronic and persistent pain” would be easy to assert, but difficult to verify. See
Prop. I.C. § 37-3502(9). Therefore, the number of people using marijuana in their
homes would greatly increase, as would the health risks to children present.
A serious flaw with the Act is that it fails to place any limits on how much
marijuana can be produced, stored, transported, or possessed at any given point by
anyone within the Act’s authority. Without any way to monitor the quantity of
marijuana possessed by persons authorized under the Act, marijuana could easily be
illegally diverted to outsiders. For example, a cardholder could sell “medical
Secretary of State McGrane
September 29, 2025
Page 17
cannabis” to outsiders without any way to track the marijuana to ensure it stays
within the Act’s purposes. The Act’s failure to limit how much medical cannabis a
cardholder or any other actor can possess would allow them to illegally sell and
deliver marijuana, in any amount, to the general public.
In sum, the Act, if passed, would greatly increase the prevalence and use of
marijuana in Idaho – almost to the point of it being entirely legalized under Idaho
law.
CERTIFICATION
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the enclosed measure has been reviewed for form,
style, and matters of substantive import. The recommendations set forth above have
been communicated to the Petitioner via a copy of this Certificate of Review, sent to
Jeremy C. Chou, Attorney at Law, Givens Pursley LLP, by e-mail to
[email protected], and by Unites States Postal Service to Jeremy C. Chou,
Attorney at Law, Givens Pursley LLP, to 601 W. Bannock Street, P.O. Box 2720,
Boise, ID 83701.
Sincerely,
RAÚL R. LABRADOR
Attorney General
Analysis by:
John C. McKinney
Deputy Attorney General